Anda di halaman 1dari 2

C 36/34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 11.2.

2006

Pleas in law and main arguments In the alternative, the applicant attacks the Commission's
alleged failure to act upon its formal request to either formally
adopt the contested measure with an amended chemical iden-
tity/purity definition satisfying the applicant's submissions or to
refrain from adopting it in its current form pending a decision
on a different chemical identity/purity definition.
The applicant produces chlorothalonil -based plant protection
products and, therefore, has an interest in securing the inclu-
sion of that substance in Annex I of the PPPD (1), which would The applicant finally requests compensation for the damages it
allow it to continue with the production of its product. It thus allegedly incurred due to its inability to continue marketing of
contests Directive 2005/53 (2) insofar as it includes this its plant protection products based on chlorothalonil.
substance in Annex I but with a specification that would
operate to exclude the product the applicant produces.
(1) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market OJ L 230,
19/08/1991, p. 1.
(2) Commission Directive 2005/53/EC of 16 September 2005
amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include chlorothalonil,
In support of this application the applicant first invokes a chlorotoluron, cypermethrin, daminozide and thiophanate-methyl
number of alleged procedural flaws of the contested measure, as active substances, OJ L 241, 17/09/2005, p. 51.
3
as well as a number of substantive legal flaws. From a proce- ( ) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992
laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first
dural standpoint, the applicant contends that it was unlawfully stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8 (2) of
rejected as a main data submitter and that its studies were Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant
unlawfully removed from Appendix IIIA to the review report. protection products on the market, OJ L 366, 15/12/1992, p. 10, as
In this context, it also alleges that the current version of that last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2266/2000, OJ L 259,
13/10/2000, p. 27.
report cannot have been approved by the Standing Committee,
since it is posterior to the latter's meeting approving the review
report. It also alleges that it was excluded from certain critical
meetings and/or exchanges, in violation of procedural safe-
guards provided for in the PPPD and Regulation 3600/92 (3)
and that its chlorothalonil specification was unlawfully with-
drawn from Annex I to the PPPD despite the reliance on its
data. The applicant also challenges the Commission's decision
to rely on a new FAO specification for changing the chlorotha- Action brought on 8 December 2005 — EMC Develop-
lonil specification under the PPPD, submitting that such a ment v Commission
change was not scientifically necessary.

(Case T-432/05)

(2006/C 36/72)
The applicant further contends that its own chlorothalonil
specification meets the requirements of Article 5 and therefore
the Commission was obliged, under this latter provision as well Language of the case: English
as Article 95 EC, to include it in Annex I. It also considers that
the principle of subsidiarity was violated in that the Commis-
sion followed a ‘maximal standard’ for chlorothalonil, violating
the Member States' prerogative when making re-registration
decisions under the PPPD. Also, the applicant invokes the viola-
tion of the principle of sound administration enshrined in Parties
Article 211 EC as well as the violation of Article 13 of the
PPPD and of the applicant's legal rights and legitimate expecta-
tions. Applicant(s): EMC Development AB (Lulea, Sweden) [repre-
sented by: M. Elvinger, lawyer]

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Moreover, the applicant contends that the contested measure


violates its rights to a fair hearing, its right of defence, the
Commission's duty to state reasons and fundamental Com-
munity law principles such as proportionality, legitimate expec- Form of order sought
tations, legal certainty and equal treatment. It also allegedly
violates the applicant's right to property since it deprives the
applicant of its right to conduct business activities. Further, the — Annul the Commission's decision dated 28th September
applicant considers that the contested measure distorts compe- 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint pursuant to Article
tition to the extent that it effectively creates a monopoly for a 3(2) of Council regulation 17/62;
competitor's product, allegedly the only one conforming to the
specification adopted. — order the Commission to pay the costs.
11.2.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 36/35

Pleas in law and main arguments as an incidental plea, the preparatory measures for that
decision;
The applicant is a corporate body inter alia responsible for the
continued testing and further research and development — Annul the allocation of promotion points during the 2004
regarding an alternative cement product known as energetically exercise, in particular, following the recommendations of
modified cement. The applicant introduced a complaint before the promotion committees;
the Commission under Regulation 17/62, accusing the Euro- — Order the Commission of the European Communities to
pean producers of Portland cement (the type of cement which pay the costs.
is predominant in the European market) of a series of beha-
viours constituting serious violations of Article 81 EC. More Pleas in law and main arguments
specifically, the complaint concerned the EN 197-1 standard,
adopted in the context of directive 89/106 (1). According to the The applicant, a Commission official, challenges the decision
applicant, this standard was purposefully designed to favour not to promote him during the 2004 exercise. In support of
existing major players in the market to the exclusion of other his action, he submits that the definitive version of his career
cement producers or market challenging products and technol- development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31
ogies. This was allegedly achieved through close cooperation December 2002 had not been compiled by the time the
between the technical sub-committee of the European contested decision was adopted. In addition, he is of the
Committee for standardisation and CEMBUREAU, the duly opinion that when allocating 'priority points' to officials for the
appointed trade association of European cement producers, the purpose of their classification with a view to promotion, the
vast majority of whose members are well established Portland Commission gave excessive weight to the 'remainder' of the
cement producers. officials who, although they had reached the promotion
threshold, had not been promoted during the earlier exercises.
The applicant now challenges the decision rejecting its The applicant also levels a more general criticism against the
complaint. It alleges that the offending standard amounts to a allocation of points which, he states, fails to comply with the
horizontal cooperation agreement in violation of Article 81 EC. requirement to carry out a comparative examination of merits
In the alternative, the applicant contends that the standard for the purpose of promotion.
breaches the aims of Articles 28 and 29 EC and cannot, in any
event, be justified at a Member State level under Article 30 EC. On that basis, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 45
of the Staff Regulations, and of the General Implementing
Provisions and the Commission's Administrative Guide for
(1) Council Directive 89/106 of 21 December 1998 on the approxima- assessment and promotion, infringement of the principle of
tion of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the non-discrimination, infringement of the principle of prohibition
Member States relating to Construction products, OJ L 40 against arbitrary treatment, infringement of the duty to give
11.12.1989, p.12 reasons, infringement of the principle of the protection of legit-
imate expectations and infringement of the duty to have regard
for the interests of officials.

(1) List published in Administrative Notice No 130 - of 30.11.2004

Action brought on 18 November 2005 — Sanchez Ferriz v


Commission
(Case T-433/05)
(2006/C 36/73)
Language of the case: French Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2005
— Grijseels and Lopez Garcia v European Economic and
Social Committee
Parties
(Case T-162/05) (1)
Applicant: Carlos Sanchez Ferriz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented
by: F. Frabetti, lawyer) (2006/C 36/74)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities Language of the case: French

Form of order sought The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case
be removed from the register.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Annul the list of officials promoted under the 2004 exer-
cise (1), insofar as that list does not include his name, and, (1) OJ C 171, 9.7.2005.